Well, since our military is bigger than the rest of the world combined and we now have a policy of pre-emptive war, coupled with our military policy of the last 30 years, I would say we are at least in the running for biggest threat to world peace.

Luckily we have a congress that can control the President so we don't go to war without popular support. We know how hard it is to build that up. And we know how much respect the President has for congress.

People who are unable to see how dangerous the US is are like 11 year olds at a family reunion who don't understand that every member of the family is not a wonderful, hard-working, loving person, but might be an alcoholic, a bastard, a cheater, a liar, etc. America is great, and it can be greater, but let's not pretend we are some perfect nation incapable of doing wrong.

As based upon the above method of determining "dangerous" militaries in the world, you might want to take a look at China, boys and girls.

...just for one example....

We won't talk about unprovoked Korean and Iranian threats to unilaterally nuke the US - and anyone else - as soon as they have the capability, nor will we mention that Chinese officials have mentioned the possibility a number of times as well.

Bones

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm

Is this first commenter a PRK troll?

Having the US as the sole superpower, and willing to use that power preemptively, contributes to the security of the world. Only a fool believes the despots of the world are not constrained by a proactive American foreign policy.

Only an ignoramus does not recognize that, alone of world powers in human history, the US has left every country we have invaded freer and richer for it in the long run.

Those who fear a big, strong good guy are mostly the bad actors.

õ¿õ

I am grateful for the Kimmy's and their voice in this country today - because they clearly tell the American people that if the Democrats come to power again it will be NECESSARY for Americans to die in large numbers FIRST, before we EVER would do anything to retaliate. (And even then the odds are low they will do anything about it) Thus, when it comes to America's SECURITY - they simply can't be trusted.

America saw this with the Clinton Administration of course - as we were attacked time and again with no substantive response.

I am thrilled to see the debate this election cycle once again be on Iraq, war, defense - issues that the Republicans have a 90-10 advantage on in the eyes of the American people's trust. Sure beats having to run on education and healthcare.

So hopefully the Democrats will be foolish enough to continue to talk loudly and often about Iraq - being critical and casting blame - as all it does is keep that as the sole issue of the election.

I am grateful for the Kimmy's and their voice in this country today - because they clearly tell the American people that if the Democrats come to power again it will be NECESSARY for Americans to die in large numbers FIRST, before we EVER would do anything to retaliate. (And even then the odds are low they will do anything about it) Thus, when it comes to America's SECURITY - they simply can't be trusted.

America saw this with the Clinton Administration of course - as we were attacked time and again with no substantive response.

I am thrilled to see the debate this election cycle once again be on Iraq, war, defense - issues that the Republicans have a 90-10 advantage on in the eyes of the American people's trust. Sure beats having to run on education and healthcare.

So hopefully the Democrats will be foolish enough to continue to talk loudly and often about Iraq - being critical and casting blame - as all it does is keep that as the sole issue of the election.

Yeah, I am sure if you did a poll of the countries we have invaded they would write a big thank you note for all of the freedom we left behind. But its probably best to accept the official government explanation of how things are better than to do some investigative work of your own. The American government, with the exception of World War 2 (and even partially then) went to war or used our CIA in order to preserve American financial and political interests, not those of the people living in the country.

And yes, a rational critique to my concern about pre-emptive war is that I want Americans to die before we do anything. Who is going to bring a military blitzkrieg while we take a nap? We have massive surveillance, radar, patrols, intelligence. We don't need to be pre-emptive because who the fuck can sneak up on us?

And there is the misconception we always see from the right. America is the big, bad GOOD guy. Always. I think the 40-100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would say that maybe our interests are not the same as theirs. And the polls showing that Iraqis don't want us there anymore seem to concur.

If you did a poll of Americans about whether we should respond to terrorist attacks by a few select people with targeted strikes or a massive, failed military campaign killing tens of thousands and costing billions of dollars. Maybe that's how Clinton stayed in the 60s while Bush languishes in the 30s.

A nervous bully with a big gun does not make things safer, even if he has a good heart.

And yes, a rational critique to my concern about pre-emptive war is that I want Americans to die before we do anything. Who is going to bring a military blitzkrieg while we take a nap? We have massive surveillance, radar, patrols, intelligence. We don't need to be pre-emptive because who the fuck can sneak up on us?
-------------------------------
Proof positive that Democrats insist on living in a world as if 9/11/01 never happened...

And another classic...

If you did a poll of Americans about whether we should respond to terrorist attacks by a few select people with targeted strikes or a massive, failed military campaign killing tens of thousands and costing billions of dollars. Maybe that's how Clinton stayed in the 60s while Bush languishes in the 30s.
----------------------------------
Except of course thos Clinton "responses" were meaningless and we were attacked time and again for 8 years during his Presidency - whereas we were hit once (and only once) 8 months into the Bush reign and haven't been hit in almost 5 years since.

Besides, you should be thrilled with the low Bush approval numbers..after all, that is how you have been able to take back both houses of Congress and the White House...

oh wait...you haven't, have you?

In fact, you LOST both houses under just 2 years of the Clinton era and were never able to get them back.

Someday, your side will wake up to the folly of looking at approval numbers..but hopefully it won't be soon.